Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  This book was published from London by John Murray, Albemarle Street in 1859 A.D. It is clear from this account that in this temple built by Ibrahim Shah both pūjā and namāz were performed without any hindrance.

  Even today this amicable coexistence of the pūjā and namaz is not unknown. In the Bhojshala at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh the Hindus perform pūjā and Muslims offer namaz since April, 2003. The Hindus are allowed to have darśana every day and perform pūjā on Tuesdays with flowers, whereas the Muslims are allowed to offer namaz on Fridays between 01:00 and 03:00 P.M. Likewise, the Hindus were allowed to perform pūjā, particularly prostrating in front of the marked birth-site of Lord Rāma and circumambulating it thrice in the disputed shrine at Ayodhyā before 1858 A.D.

  (32) Edward B. Eastwick’s ‘Handbook of the Bengal Presidency’ (1882)

  The author has given vivid account of many important places including the Calcutta city under the Bengal Presidency. The book was published in 1882 by John Murray, Albemarle Street, London. On the Janma-sthāna of Rāma the author writes:

  “The Janma Sthãn or place where Rãm Chandra was born, is 1/3 of a m. to the W. of the Hanumãn Garh. Close to the door, and outside it, is a Muhammadan cemetery, in which 165 persons, according to the ‘Gazetteer’ 75 persons, are buried, all Muslims, who were killed in a fight between the Muslims and Hindus for the possession of the temple in 1855. The Muslims on that occasion charged up the steps of the Hanumãn Garh, but were driven back with considerable loss. The Hindus followed up their success, and at the 3rd attempt took the Janam Sthãn, at the gates of which the Muslims who were killed were buried, the place being called Ganj i Shahidan, or “Grave of the Martyrs.” Eleven Hindus were killed, and were thrown into the river. Several of the King of Awadh’s regiments were looking on, but their orders were not to interfere. Up to that time both Hindus and Muhammadans used to worship in the temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up, within which the Muslims pray. Outside, the Hindus make their offerings. The actual Janam Sthãn is a plain masonry platform, just outside the mosque or temple, but within the enclosure, on the left-hand side. The primeval temple perished, but was rebuilt by Vikram, and it was his temple that the Muslims converted into a mosque. Europeans are expected to take off their shoes if they enter the building, which is quite plain, with the exception of 12 black pillars taken from the old temple. On the pillar on the left of the door as you enter, may be seen the remains of a figure which appears to be either Krishna or an Apsara. There are 2 alcoves, one on either side of the main arch, and a stone pulpit, on the steps of which is an inscription now illegible. The building is about 38 ft. by 18 ft.” (Section II, Route 24 – Jawanpùr to Ayodhya, pp. 23031)

  Eastwick confirms that up to the advent of the British rule in 1858 both Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the ‘temple’. He mentions the existence of 12 black pillars which were parts of the old temple. He gives a vivid account of a pillar on the left of the door where “may be seen the remains of a figure which appears to be either Krishna or an Apsarā.” Since it might have been in a dancing pose and not very visible, this uncertainty was in his mind. But in any case no such figure could be created on a pillar of a mosque because it is against the basic concept of Islam.

  The author further gives a very valuable information that on the steps of a stone pulpit there was an inscription which was illegible at the time of the visit of the author. This inscription might have been taken away from the demolished temple and might have contained some Sanskrit hymns along with the picture of some deity. It was the fashion of many Muslim marauders to keep such pious pictures of Hindu gods on the steps of stairs so that the pictures or idols were trampled under the feet of the persons using the stairs. Because of prolonged trampling the inscription had become illegible. It was different from Persian inscriptions which were to the left and right of the pulpit.

  Another vital information from the author Edward B. Eastwick’s account is that the Rāmanavamī fair was attended by five lakh devotees in 1880 A.D. when the population of the country was not very high. (p. 228)

  (33) Hans Bakker’s conclusions

  Hans Bakker wrote his book ‘Ayodhyā’ before the Ayodhyā controversy erupted. On Rāma-Janma-bhūmi temple his observations are as follows:

  “The oldest pieces of archaeological evidence are the black columns which remain from the old (Visnu) temple that was situated on the holy spot where Rama descended to earth (Janma-bhumi). This temple was destroyed by the first Mogul prince Babur in AD 1528 and replaced by a mosque which still exists. The following specimens of these pillars are known to exist: fourteen pillars were utilized by the builder Mir Baqi in the construction of the mosque and are still partly visible within it; two pillars were placed besides the grave of the Muslim saint Fazl Abbas alias Musa Ashikhan, who, according to oral tradition, incited Babur to demolish the Hindu temple. The grave and these two pillars (driven upside-down into the ground) are still shown in Ayodhya, a little south of the Kubertila. A seventeenth specimen is found in the new Janmasthana temple of the north of the Babur mosque. It is rather a door-jamb than a column.”

  Now some of such evidences are presented to show that Ayodhyā has been a pilgrim place on account of being Rāma’s birthplace and has been attracting devotees from all parts of the country since time immemorial.

  It is remarkable to note that Hans Bakker has stuck to his thesis that Baburi mosque was built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Rāma even in the article ‘Ayodhyā: A Hindu Jerusalem’ published in Numen wherein he writes:

  “Now until the end of Great Moghul rule, that is to say till the beginning of the eighteenth century, Ayodhya was the capital of one of the provinces of the Muslim empire in North India. In consequence, Hindu sects had few rights to defend in the city. Pilgrimage was tolerated, but the cream of the profits from it was taken by the Muslim rulers in the form of a tax on pilgrims. It was forbidden to build temples or monasteries of more than a certain dimension in the city, and the existing temples fell into decay and disappeared or were replaced by mosques. The latter took place with the temple on the supposed spot of Rama’s birth, dating from the early eleventh century. This small temple was replaced by a mosque, the Babri Masjid, in AD 1528, during the reign of the first Moghul emperor, Babur, a deed which was to have far-reaching consequences.” (Vol. 38, Fasc.1,pp. 80-109 published by Brill Publishers in Leiden, The Netherlands in the year 1991, p. 91)

  Hans Bakker rightly suggests that the Hindus have been considering the disputed spot as the birthplace of Rāma from the early eleventh century. Thus, this tradition has a history of one thousand years at least. But he did not probe the authenticity of inscriptions and analyse the correctness of the historical evidences. Therefore, he could not go beyond the trodden path ofAyodhyā’s history.

  (34) Visit of Vishnu Bhatta Godshe Versaikar to Ayodhyā (1859 A.D.)

  Vishnu Bhatta Godshe Versaikar was a Chitapavan Brahman who left his native place Versai near Pune for the northern parts of India for better earning. During his journey the great Indian Revolt of 1857 started. He was, in fact, caught in the imbroglio on the way. He, however, succeeded in moving forward and reached Ayodhyā on April 10, 1859, a Sunday, on the eve of the Rāmanavamī festival. He has given a detailed description of the events and the place in his book titled Majha Pravas (My Travels), i.e. ‘1858 The Real Story of the Great Uprising’. He starts the narration of Ayodhyā in the following words:

  “By evening, we had arrived at Shri Kshetra Ayodhya and stopped at the Kale Rama temple. The festival of Ramnavami (the day Lord Rama was born) was only a few days away and so the city of Ayodhya was milling with some seven to eight lakh pilgrims and holy men. I had never seen so many sadhus and bairagis together. There were also many pilgrims from the south.” (p. 177)

  Then he gives a detailed description of the Kale Rāma Temple, Hanuman Garhi, the Sarayū River and monkeys of the holy city. Thereafter, he narrates his own experience of
Ayodhyā on the Rāmanavamī day in the following words:

  “According to the ancient scriptures, Ramnavami at Ayodhya has always been a special celebration. It is believed that bathing in the Sarayù river on this day and then paying homage to the Lord’s birthplace washes away all kinds of sins and one is never reborn as a mortal. We participated in the festivities with everyone else. First, we all went to the river to bathe. The crowds and the noise were unbelievable. People were blowing conch shells, shouting praises to the Lord, singing devotional songs and playing various musical instruments, including drums and cymbals. Most devotees were visitors from other places and spoke different languages. But a strong bond of love and devotion for the Lord of Ayodhya tied them together.

  After the bath, the crowds left for the temple with Tulasi leaves, areca nuts and coins clutched in their hands as offerings. Offering Tulasi leaves to the Lord at this spot is said to be especially beneficial. I too arrived, like the others, with my offerings at the birthspot of Lord Rama. The fabled spot is merely a large waist-high platform in an open area. It is made of limestone and surrounded by a wall about three or four feet high. Grasses and weeds grow all over, and in the distance one can see the remains of what must have been the walls of an old fort. The place where Lord Rama’s mother Kaushalya’s palace is said to have stood is just a flat piece of land now. Several thousand excited pilgrims in an open space such as this can cause stampedes, so one has to be on one’s guard all through. The administration also posts special pickets on this occasion to ward off unpleasant happenings. Despite that, each year, five to six pilgrims lose their lives in the melee. Anyway, we finally viewed the sacred spot and came back.” (pp. 18384)

  Then he gives the description of Svargadvāra and narrates some tales about Ayodhyā. At the end he makes the following departing description of Ayodhyā:

  “Ayodhya has a spot to be the location for the Putrakameshti yagna (a special fire sacrifice) that the childless king Dasharatha had performed to beget a son and heir. It is said that if one digs just a little, one can still find remnants of burnt rice offerings made during this yagna. When I visited the spot, I found hundreds of men digging for the holy grains. I also took a fistful and added to it the yellow soil from the bank of the Sarayù river to take home as a holy offering. We spent some twenty-two days in Ayodhya and spent all our money in charity and sightseeing. Some young friends of mine, who were also from the south, now started saying that before we went home we must indulge in some revelry. Let us go visit the city of Lucknow, they said.” (p. 186)

  After visiting certain important places like Varanasi, he returned to his native place where he recieved a rousing reception from his villagers. Thereafter, he narrated his experiences during the Indian revolt in Gwaliar, Kanpur, Lucknow, Jhansi, Kalpi and Bundelkhand areas.

  Chintamani Vinayak Vaidya advised him to write it down for the coming generations. Thus, on his advice Vishnu Bhatt wrote his experiences in a book form which he named ‘Maajha pravas-1857 chya Bandachi Hakikat’ in 1881 A.D. As per Vishnu Bhatt’s wish the book was published in 1907 after his death in 1903. The book was translated from Marathi into Hindi by noted writer Amrit Lal Nagar. It has been now lucidly translated into English by eminent writer Mrinal Pande from the original Marathi manuscript and published by Harper Perennial in 2011. The description of Ayodhyā visited by Vishnu Bhatt in April 1859 is a great testimony to the holy town as it existed then.

  From the analysis of these passages from a detailed description of Ayodhyā by an eye witness in 1859 A.D. the following situation emerges:

  (i) During the Rāma-navamī festival some seven to eight lakh pilgrims and devotees assembled at Ayodhyā.

  (ii) Pilgrims had come from all parts of the country and though they spoke different languages, yet “strong bond of love and devotion for the Lord of Ayodhyā tied them together.”

  (iii) There was general perception that by visiting the birthplace of Lord Rāma after taking bath in the Sarayū River one “washes away all kinds of sins and is not reborn as a mortal.”

  (iv) Pilgrims used to visit the birthplace of Lord Rāma described as ‘The Temple’ “with Tulasi leaves, areca nuts and coins clutched in their hands as offerings.”

  (v) The birthplace was a large waist high platform in an open area, made of limestone and surrounded by a wall about three or four feet high.

  (vi) There were remains of, what the author Vishnu Bhatta calls, “the walls of an old fort.”

  (vii) Several thousand ‘excited pilgrims’, gathered in an open space, could cause stampedes. Despite administrative arrangements five to six pilgrims used to lose lives in the melee every year.

  (viii) Thousands of pilgrims were found digging for the holy grains which every pilgrim used to carry home as a holy offering.

  (ix) It is clear from this testimony that during the Rāmanavamī or other festival days the offering of namaz was impossible in the disputed shrine; as thousands of pilgrims thronged the site.

  After spending twenty-two days at Ayodhyā Vishnu Bhatt left for Lucknow.

  From the perusal and critical analysis of all the evidences cited above it is clear that the existence of the Janma-sthāna of Lord Rāma and a temple there is based on incontrovertible evidences and not mere faith.

  (35) Two Mughal Sanads on Ayodhyâ highlighted for the first time

  Mahant Gyan Das, the chief Abbot of the Nirvānī Akhāra of Hanumangarhi, is in proud possession of two Mughal sanads which are produced and discussed below:

  The first Sanad granting six bighas of land for the construction of Hanuman Tila had been issued on the 13th Ramzan of 1008 A.H., i.e. 28th March, 1600. This date falls under the reign of Akbar. Therefore, Akbar was the Emperor, by whose order this Sanad granting six bighas of land for the construction (तामीर) of Hanuman Tila, was issued. Akbar’s association with Ayodhyā is shown for the first time through this Sanad.

  This Sanad was renewed on 8th July, 1723 to Abhayarama by Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khan Khanan Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan who was Sadar-us-Sadur, i.e. Superintendent of Endowments since 21st October, 1719.

  A very significant feature of this Sanad is that the writer of this deed claims that he is writing it at the holy place which is the birthsite of Rāma. He uses the Persian word ‘maulud’ which means जन्मभूमि.

  Thus, the word जन्मभूमि of Rāma was used in the Persian text as early as 1723, i.e. almost 300 years ago.

  The following is the true copy of the Persian Sanad:

  The first Mughal sanad for Hanumangarhi.

  The Roman transliteration made by Persian scholars of Khuda Bakhsh Library, Patna is produced below:

  1. Sharh aamdah ast waqi batarikh roz yak shanbah Panjum Shawwal julus mualla muwafiq 1135 A.H. mutabiq wala Shahr ma‘ahu barisalah Naqabatuddin Muayid Hashmat wa Shaukat Munis umdah umrai Rafiusshan zinda Khawanin buland makan Laaiqurrahmat wala shan Hazrat.

  2. Aan Hazrat Mustanadul Mamalik Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khan Khanan Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan awisht waqi’ nigar kamtarin khanazad ast dargah shahrist Maulud Ram Qalmi mi kunad hukmmwala Sadir shud ki shash bigha zamin dar subah Awadh tamir Hanuman Tila banam Abhay Ram Faqir bakhshidam waqi yak hazar wa hashtum.

  3. 13 Shahr Ramazan 5 julus bamujib tasdiq aawurdah ast qalmi shud. Sharh badastkhat siyadat wa najabat Rafiqe amarat wa ahalat mihrast taban madarij dar ain wa Shahrin samai maratib mamlikat darin farazindah liwai shaukat wa hashmat bar aarindah basalat muzamat itimad khalafat muqarriban rawabit.

  4. itimad saltanat korish wa sujud asrar wa muqarriban waqif umur khas khalifah Sultan ba azm qadrah Suhbati muqarriban maarikah Adam Zafar Sarai mamalik shan shud aish zar mahafil kashi maadar bar saib tadabbur musir raushan zamir zubdah daulat khahan ba farhang shuda madad hai khas.

  5. hukme wasiqul iradah wal ikhlas surudam zubdat umara wal ikhlas murshide mumid yak nasib shiaar jumatul mamalik madarul maham Nizamul Mulk Bahadur Fatah Jang Sipahsalar aanki naqli waqi numay
ad. Sharh dastkhat siyadat wa naqabat martabat wa ahalat manzilat.

  6. wa hashmat shaukat maratib umdatul umarai Rafiusshan Zubdah Khawanin buland makan laiqul amr hashmat wala Shan Hazrat Aan Hazrat wala khaqam mutamidul mulk Mir Jumla Muazzam Khan Khanikhanan Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan aan ki naql waqi numayad. Sharh dastkhat waqi nigaran.

  7. Sharh dastkhat Jumatulmulk madarul maham Nizamul Mulk Bahadur Fatah Jung Sipahsalar aanki baarzi mukarrar rusanad. Sharh dastkhat Sharfuddaula Iradatmand Khan Sadiq Bahadur Tahawwur Jang aanki hafdahum zilhijjah san.

  8. julusi Mualla mukarrar ba arz manqush rasid. Ba sharh dastkhat umdatul mulk madarul maham Nizamulmulk Bahadur Fatah Jang Sipahsalar aanki farman wala Shan Qalmi numayad – faqat.

  And the following is its English translation:

  Be it declared that in the exalted reign on the 5th day of the Shawwal (month) of 1135 A.H. i.e. on 8th July, 1723 this sanad was issued by Naqbatuddin Muaaid Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khankhana Bahadur Jung Turkhan, who is a man of high pomp and grandeur, who aims high, who is spoken very high of and who is revered like a Hazrat in each country.

  This insignificant writer, who is native of the holy place which is the maulud (जन्मभूमि) of Rāma, is reducing it in writing with pen. By order, it is certified that six bighas of land in the province of Oudh which was granted for the construction of Hanuman Tila, is given to Abhayarama in the fifth exalted reign after comparing it with the deed issued on the 13th Ramjan of 1008 A.H., i.e. 28th March, 1600.

  It is signed by Malik Adam Jafar Sarai, who comes from a noble family, who is a pious leader, who stays in high palaces and who is of high rank and post, whose flag is high and who is relied upon by people. He makes endeavour for the Sultanate, bows his head before it and is dedicated. His intention is solid and he respects all. He is the master of the north direction.